Evolution VS. Creationism

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

mumbo jumbo mumbo jumbo......what? i thought you would show some scientific evidence or something to teach me about evolution but all i see is avoidance of my question.

If you want to be taught about something, ask a question that makes sense and we will do our best to answer it. If you ask a bogus question, your lucky you don't just get a bogus answer. At least we took the time to try to educate you on HOW to ask VALID questions instead of just making fun of your lack of education.

thanks for the knowledge, i feel so much more enlightened.

Oh if that were the fact, or perhaps even possible.

the only fallacy to a question is when someone who supposedly has the answer won't supply it,

Get educated enough to ask ACTUAL and VALID questions. You only make yourself look even less educated by attacking those trying to educate you. Argument Fallacies are not only well established, taught in even basic Philosophy courses, written about extensively, but are now even referenced in this site's FAQ in order to help peopple such as yourself overcome your IGNORANCE of them.

maybe then the fallacy is they don't have an answer.

OK, then tell me what is north of the north pole?

 

Or prove there is no Tooth Fairy.

 

Where does your lap go when you stand up?

 

Well, are you too stupid to " have an answer"?

 

And have you stopped beating your wife?

[IrishEyes]

Explain it to them Irish! Or perhaps at least see why Unc and I spend so much time trying to get Christers to understand and use proper concepts and termonolgy. Otherwise we keep getting questions that make no sense.

 

If this is a slight, it is uncalled for, FreeT. This is exactly the type of case where I would relish seeing the difference explained, as wisdumn is basically begging for some kind of an explanation. Instead of telling him how stupid or wrong his questions are, take your best guess at what he's asking, paraphrase it back to him, and just ANSWER THE QUESTION. If he reads it and says "No, that's not exactly what I meant", ask him to clarify for you.

 

I DO understand your frustration. But telling him that he doesn't know how to ask a question instead of saying something like "Hey, Wiz, do you realize that evolution DOES NOT explain how something evolved from nothing? Abiogenesis best explains the origins of life on this planet, while evolution best explains the development of HUMAN life on this planet, according to science. Neither evolution nor abiogenesis require the existence of a creator." Then you could perhaps direct Wiz to the talkorigins page that explicitly details the theory of abiogenesis link to talkorigins page that explains abiogenesis

 

Or you could paraphrase it for him.

 

If you guys haven't noticed it, this person seems to be really looking for answers, and you are offering little more than "Hey, you don't ask right, so we're not telling!". Yes, I know you've been thorugh this with him before. But if you are going to let Wiz stay a member of the site, then answer his questions. Otherwise, ban him. It would be so much nicer to ban him than just ignoring his questions and all but calling him stupid for not understanding what seems so obvious to you.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

If you guys haven't noticed it, this person seems to be really looking for answers, and you are offering little more than "Hey, you don't ask right, so we're not telling!".

If you will notice, that is what my first attempt was. But when I get back

Originally posted by: wisdumn

mumbo jumbo mumbo jumbo......what? i thought you would show some scientific evidence or something to teach me about evolution but all i see is avoidance of my question....maybe then the fallacy is they don't have an answer.

I TRIED to explain argument fallacies and got back a complete rejection of acceptance that fallacies even exist.

 

OK, "when in Rome..."

Yes, I know you've been thorugh this with him before.

I don't get paid to teach. I try to explain. But my end goal is to make sure correct info is presented. Not to "change the other persons mind".

But if you are going to let Wiz stay a member of the site, then answer his questions.

It is not my intent to BAN him or almost anyone else unless they are reakky violating the intent/ FAQ. Such as someone just looking for free ad space with no intent to dialog.

It would be so much nicer to ban him than just ignoring his questions and all but calling him stupid for not understanding what seems so obvious to you.

Where did I call him stupid?

[IrishEyes]

Where did I call him stupid?

 

You didn't call him stupid. If you will re-read what I said, it was "all but calling him stupid for not understanding what seems so obvious to you."

 

You were very careful not to actually come out and say "wisdumn, you are stupid." However, by insinuating that he is uneducated, that you need to go over things again and again (as if he couldn't get it the first time), that he does not know how to ask a question that 'makes sense', you very clearly insinuate that you do not feel he is intelligent enough to converse with you. And as you refuse to explain abiogenesis to him, even after he has done everything but BEG for the explanation, you come off as an intellectually superior jerk.

 

Statements such as:

How many times do we need to go over this?

If you want to be taught about something, ask a question that makes sense and we will do our best to answer it.

At least we took the time to try to educate you on HOW to ask VALID questions instead of just making fun of your lack of education.

Get educated enough to ask ACTUAL and VALID questions. You only make yourself look even less educated by attacking those trying to educate you.

 

may not be saying "STUPID", but it is there nonetheless. You know it, I know it, and obviously, so does wisdumn. Quit trying to make him feel inferior, and just answer his abiogenesis questions.

[IrishEyes]

08/20/2004 05:20 PM - FreeT

If you will notice, that is what my first attempt was. But when I get back .....

I TRIED to explain argument fallacies and got back a complete rejection of acceptance that fallacies even exist.

I don't get paid to teach. I try to explain. But my end goal is to make sure correct info is presented. Not to "change the other persons mind".

 

All good points in your mind, I'm sure. But wisdumn was not asking for a lesson in argument fallacies. He asked for an explanation of inspiration. Then he asked for an explanation of abiogenesis, but called it evolution. Just answer his question. Explain how 'something can come from nothing'.

[GAHD]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

08/20/2004 05:20 PM - FreeT

 

If you will notice, that is what my first attempt was. But when I get back .....

 

I TRIED to explain argument fallacies and got back a complete rejection of acceptance that fallacies even exist.

 

I don't get paid to teach. I try to explain. But my end goal is to make sure correct info is presented. Not to "change the other persons mind".

 

 

 

All good points in your mind, I'm sure. But wisdumn was not asking for a lesson in argument fallacies. He asked for an explanation of inspiration. Then he asked for an explanation of abiogenesis, but called it evolution. Just answer his question. Explain how 'something can come from nothing'.

 

If he can answer that he better get to work on the universal field theory next, and dust off his mantle for a few nobels.

[wisdumn]

hey FT, it's o.k. if it's too much to ask questions and not get jumbled up and re-routed questions instead of simple answers that's fine. i asked simple no, make that very easily understood questioning. other people seemed to get it but if it's stupid questioning to you, and if my intelligence is inferior to yours, then what could i possibly learn from someone as brilliant as you at my inferior level. i mean i must be about as intelligent is the first atom, well maybe at least i'll pull some evolution or abiogenesis and one day maybe billions of yrs. from now- i'll finally evolve into a person that can ask intelllllliiiiiiiggggeeennTtt questions

[island]

I think that maybe what wisdumn was so ineptly trying to ask was, how does the purposeful evolutionry process arise if there is no purpose in a universe that's ruled by chaos and random chance.

 

The classical counter-answer to that loaded question is that there are an infinite number of possible universes, and so one of them had to be like ours, incuding humans and the evolutionary process, but that requires a leap in complexity beyond our observable universe, which is a violation of Free-Thinker's usage of some kindofa grand scale application of Ockhams razor to derive his own version of the preferred theory... which is pretty cool.

 

A common definition for the preferred theory is the most accurate reflection of nature, in the least number of possible steps. The preferred theory can only be more complex if it is more accurate than another similar reflection.

 

Assuming that BigBang theory, (as supported by relativity, particle theory, observation and the historic timeline of cosmology) is a fairly accurate representation of nature, then it would require an unfounded leap of faith outside of the basic entropic nature of nature to presume that all action in the universe isn't ultimately directed toward the satisfaction of the second law of thermodynamics, since the entropic tendency was instilled into the energy of the universe at the moment of the BigBang, (or t=10^-43), and still exists today as the PREDOMINANT tendency or PURPOSE of the universe.

 

An increase in complexity equates to an increase in the potential for disorder, and this effect gets compounded in an expanding universe that has an increasing cosmological "constant", which serves to further isolate the forces in the effort toward grand scale equilibrium.

 

In this context, (which means everything as it applies to self-consistency without unfoundend leaps of faith, as this pertains to the preferred theory), it is observationally proven that humans represent a highly efficient means for satisfying the second law on a grand scale, and this *potential* was increased exponentially by the "leap", assuming that human evolutionary theory is also a fairly accurate reflection of nature.

 

Per FreeThinker's accurate represenation it requires an unfounded philosophical leap of faith outside of the basic entropic nature of nature to assume that there is no purpose in a universe that clearly expresses a predominant expansive tendency. And it requires a completely unsubstantiated leap in complexity in order to contrive an argument for human life as a function of purely random chance that will get you around this most fundamental physical reality of our universe.

 

It also requires an unfounded faith-like philosophical leap in arrogance to presume that humans wouldn't be required players in the game that the rest of the universe has played since the Big Bang instilled the entropic tendency into everything in it at the moment of creation of THIS particular universe.

 

And that means the entropic nature of our universe supercedes all other motivations, ultimately, and so this frame of reference is necessarily preferred in terms of its most fundamental instructive nature.

 

In other words, the burden of proof is not on me to show why straying from this most fundamental nature of nature is justified, because this is inherently the most natural default position in a universe that has had a predominant expansive tendency since its time began.

 

By definition, that makes it the most naturally preferred theory

 

To answer the question:

Evolution is about entropic efficiency and entropic favoritism is the mechanism.

 

Now, let's see if willfull ignorance exists on both sides of this debate, e.g. Extreme evolutionists worship their god, "Chaos" with just as much fanatical prejudice against a purposeful as "believers", even if it's purely natural.

 

 

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.geocities.com/naturescience//index.html

">http://www.geocities.co

[wisdumn]

thank you for your reply island and though you called my questioning inept i would have to say that it was more along the lines of SIMPLY stated which ishard for some to perceive if they are of a consistent nature to use complex words and/or detailed explanation.

now you said and i quote: " to anser the question: Evolution is about Entropic efficiency and Entropic favoritism is the mechanism. "

so in turn i looked up the exact definition of Entropy in the applied context

Entropy: the tendency for all matter in the universe to evolve toward a state of INERT uniformity.

this brought me to look up the definition of inert

Inert: unable to move or act

definition sources from dictionary.com

 

so if evolution is about entropy and entropy is about inertia, then doesn't evolution logically state the theory of something coming from nothing?

[island]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

thank you for your reply island and though you called my questioning inept i would have to say that it was more along the lines of SIMPLY stated which is hard for some to perceive if they are of a consistent nature to use complex words and/or detailed explanation.

now you said and i quote:  " to anser the question: Evolution is about Entropic efficiency and Entropic favoritism is the mechanism. "

   so in turn i looked up the exact definition of  Entropy in the applied context

  Entropy: the tendency for all matter in the universe to evolve toward a state of INERT uniformity.

            this brought me to look up the definition of inert

  Inert: unable to move or act

definition sources from dictionary.com

 

so if evolution is about entropy and entropy is about inertia,  then doesn't evolution logically state the theory of something coming from nothing?

 

heh... no.

 

Entropy: the tendency for all matter in the universe to evolve TOWARD a state of INERT uniformity....

 

It's all about the effort... NOT actually getting there... Alfie'... and you made the mistake of leaping beyond the basic entropic nature of nature to make that unfounded assumption. e.g., Don't leap to assume that "nothing" could ever possibly exist, since every last shred of evidence that we have at our disposal tells us exactly the opposite.

[wisdumn]

replying to your last sentence: so are you saying that every last shred of evidence is actually saying:

"everything came from something?"

[island]

Yes.

[wisdumn]

i can agree with that, so how do you personally think our particular universe came to exist ( simplest explanation please)?

[wisdumn]

i have to run island, have a good day and i look forward to your reply. -wisdumn

[island]

I have a very high level of empirically supported confidence that our universe came into being by way of the Big Bang, and before you ask what existed before the big bang... the physics on my website explains how the breakdown of matter in an expanding entropic universe increases tension between the vacuum and ordinary matter, (by way of asymmetric transitions which occur through real and virtual particle pair production), until eventually and inevitably this will exceed the limits of the forces that bind our universe together.

 

BOOM!!!

 

This enables the system to leap to a higher order of entropic efficiency, via what is otherwise known as a metasystems transition.

 

This site explains that aspect of it in better detail:

 

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASYMTRANS.html

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASYMILL.html

 

Our universe came into being by of the same mechanism... as did the one before that and that and that... and...

 

It's all about the journey, Alfie'... not actually arriving.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Where did I call him stupid?

 

You didn't call him stupid.

And I am very careful not to. Perhaps not 100%, but I try.

If you will re-read what I said, it was "all but calling him stupid for not understanding what seems so obvious to you."

More compltetly you said:

It would be so much nicer to ban him than just ignoring his questions and all but calling him stupid for not understanding what seems so obvious to you.

Perhaps I did misconstrue your intent. I do apologize. But when you add the lead in RE banning, I had thought the message was that banning him would have been nicer than calling him stupid. My bad! I was wrong.

You were very careful not to actually come out and say "wisdumn, you are stupid." However, by insinuating that he is uneducated,

As many times as I have posted the difference between "stupid" and "ignorant", you should have caught on by now.

 

"Ignorant" is merely lacking in knowledge. It can be corrected by access to the specific knowledge needed. "Stupid" is when you have access to the knowedge and can't comprehend.

you very clearly insinuate that you do not feel he is intelligent enough to converse with you.

No, I VERY CLEARLY STATE he is refusing to do so. That I ahve done what I can to educate him regarding using fallacies in stead of proof. He outright rejected it.

 

This is a good example of the difference between ignorant and stupid. If a person has never been educated on how to construct a logical, reasoned argument , he is ignorant of how to construct a logical, reasoned argument. If he is given an education on it by still intentionally rejects it, he is either too stupid to comprehend or intentionally posting intellectually dishonestly.

And as you refuse to explain abiogenesis to him, even after he has done everything but BEG for the explanation, you come off as an intellectually superior jerk.

I'd love to see ANY post of his in which he requests my help in his understanding abiogenesis.

 

Well? Where is it?

Quit trying to make him feel inferior, and just answer his abiogenesis questions.

No problem-O! Soon as you show me where he did request it. Or he does.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

hey FT, it's o.k. if it's too much to ask questions and not get jumbled up and re-routed questions instead of simple answers that's fine. i asked simple no, make that very easily understood questioning.

If you will accept jumbled up answers filled with fallacies and lack any factual orientatio, I will be happy to answer the questions you posted earlier in kind.

 

However the questions you thin you posted are not valid and thus have no VALID answers.

 

If you do not want help with how to construct reasoned questions that might have valid answers, then why are you at a Science based site?